work expects me to work through unpaid dinner hour

surreysaver

Zazen999 wrote: »

From the gov website:


The requirements are:

• the break must be in one block
  
• it cannot be taken off one end of the working day - it must be somewhere in the middle
  
• you are allowed to spend it away from the place on your employer's premises where you work
  
• your employer can say when the break must be taken, as long as it meets these conditions

The lunch break was taken in the coach trip on the way back; which is not at the employer's premises. Technically; they provided food [even if the OP didn't eat it], and all of the above conditions have been met.

So, what law has been broken?

It says you are allowed to spend it away from your workplace - it doesn't say your employer can force you to take it in a coach against your will! And if they are in the coach whilst on duty, then that is the place of work for the duration, so the employee is entitled to take their break away from that place of work - i.e. away from the coach. The onus is on the employee to choose - not the employer. And if the food is not suitable for the OP, then they have not provided food.

Fluffi

Given that you are only entitled to a 20 minute unpaid break when they work more than 6 hours and the purpose of breaks according to DirectGov is to "rest" and for health and safety reason I think the break being taken on the coach it reasonably "restful" (at least compared to actively working and answering calls) and therefore the "rest" purpose of having a break is being fulfilled. Soit would be difficult to argue that the law was being broken here!

Besides the OPs employer is pretty nice normally - they get a paid 20 minute break in addition to their unpaid lunch hour. Legally a business doesn't have to pay for any breaks. If I ran a business where my employees got 20 minute paid break every day and then they started complaining about "losing" their lunch hour to sit on a coach and have a free sandwich once in a while I'd think twice about giving anyone any paid breaks at all! *

* Obviously in practice this would mean changing peoples contracts and wouldn't be that straightforward.

Proc

To OP,

I haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if I repeat anyone. Yes, you probably are entitled to a break. Yes, there probably is some law somewhere that states that your employer can't force you to eat on a coach or whatever. Your employer knows this, and is trying to compromise by providing food.

So yes, you may be able to haggle out of it. But ask yourself this: is it worth it?

I guess it depends what you want to do in life. I know that if my employer told me I would have to sacrifice one lunch break, then I'd be happy to do so. By not doing this, you're just always going to be that annoying employee who quotes their rights everytime something doesn't go their way. You won't see any promotions, favours, pay-rises or back-scratches in the near future.

So yes. Go ahead. Cause as much disruption as possible. Post on internet forums. Cry yourself to sleep at night some more. Give a headache to all of your work collegues. I just hope you're happy afterwards.

surreysaver

Fluffi wrote: »

I think the break being taken on the coach it reasonably "restful"

I disagree. The trouble is, you think it is, and I think it isn't. It is different for different people.
So it would be difficult to argue that the law was being broken here!

No it isn't.

Besides the OPs employer is pretty nice normally - they get a paid 20 minute break in addition to their unpaid lunch hour.

The lunch hour is unpaid. So it is up to the OP what they do with it. Not the employer. Is the employer offering to give them the hour back they have stolen from them?

..............................

surreysaver

Proc wrote: »

So yes, you may be able to haggle out of it. But ask yourself this: is it worth it?

Something you create about the OP might think you're being silly. Different things are important to different people.

Fluffi

surreysaver wrote: »

The lunch hour is unpaid. So it is up to the OP what they do with it. Not the employer. Is the employer offering to give them the hour back they have stolen from them?

Yes the lunch hour is unpaid, but the OP gets over a hour and a half of paid breaks a week and is being asked to work through one lunch hour. This seems to be an unusual event and probably wouldn't happen more than once every couple of months, so over a year they might be working 4-5 lunch hours but in return they get 77 hours of paid breaks (which is a perk of their contracts). So yes a lunch hour has been stolen but they still get a lot more than that over a whole year ... another employer wouldn't give any paid breaks at all!

As I said before if people started complaining about losing one hour unpaid break when they get 77hrs of paid breaks a year then I wouldn't blame the employer for trying to withdraw the paid breaks. Then they when they need to hold a talk offsite that overruns into people's lunch hour they will pay for the lunch hour as per demands but not for breaks anymore, so business would save at least 40 minutes of paid breaks a week even if they held a talk every week which works out to be over 29hrs per employee per year!

This is why I don't understand antagonising the employer by being so inflexible about a single lunch hour, because the OP's employer does give its employees perks beyond those required by law you really have to wonder if its worth risking the benefits being taken away.

Kimitatsu

I think this thread has run its course now and the OP's question has been answered.